Do you take into account your time spent as costs assigning a value to it?

If I dont include time spent on this I did break even a lot of time ago... When I take the time spent into the equation using my usual "hourly rate" then things are not so great 
Time is money!

I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000  and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).

In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing.  In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).

I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.

I'd say that there are quite a few people who "break even" primarily through sales on sites other than IS, and with considerably less than $20,000 - personally this was also my first major milestone on stock - earning more than I'd spent on equipment - which at that stage was about $2000. I reached it after about 1.5 years of ad-hoc uploading, but mainly through SS - IS only accounted for about 15% of my earnings at that stage.

My current goal is to earn more than I'm spending week-to-week and for that income to rise steadily (this is proving to be the hard part - maybe time for more work and less travel?!).

I think its easy for newer contributors and photographers to get caught up in buying a whole collection of camera equipment before they really understand what it is that they need. For me this is a constant temptation that I also need to keep in check. Too much equipment is often more of a hindrance than a help. In most cases, any current model DSLR with good quality glass is sufficient for stock. If you're not getting sales and files accepted, chances are the problem is technique and content related, not due to your equipment. While there are clearly some photographers who can earn enough to pay for expensive studios and equipment (such as Yuri) its important to remember that the key to their success isn't due to the equipment that they shoot with (good though it may be), but more to other factors, such as choice of subject, styling and organisation.

The time to spend more serious money on gear is when you know what it is you want to shoot, and that the extra expense is justified by the fact that it will earn you more income. Alternatively you may just want a new toy... and can justify it as an "investment" to your partner... don't let me rain on your parade in that case

The figure given was from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ - don't know if this includes absolutely all contributors, but it must be most as the total files listed is over 5 million, which will be the sum of those from the 29,271 contributors listed (as of now).

If there are another 20k or more, they don't upload much!

I think these big numbers are somewhat misleading. DT claim to have 76K photographers and SS an incredible 191K. I imagine the latter is the number of individuals who have registered, sucked in via the referral scheme, but of whom the majority have no images uploaded.

According to multimedia.de on IS there are just over 1000 contributors with more than 1000 images and fewer than 5000 contributors with 250 images or more.

If the entire microstock market is currently generating about $300M per annum, as suggested by some estimates, then something like $100M should be being paid out to contributors.  At a minimum gross income of say $50K, necessary to live in the Western world, then in theory microstock could support about 2000 full-timers. Of course it's never going to be shared out equally and in fact there must be a relatively small number of contributors doing extremely well and lots more struggling to grow.

Quote from: lisafx on September 19, 2009, 08:42

Out of curiosity, where do you find the total number of contributors to istock listed?  30,000 sounds low to me.  I thought it was 50 or 60k

The figure given was from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ - don't know if this includes absolutely all contributors, but it must be most as the total files listed is over 5 million, which will be the sum of those from the 29,271 contributors listed (as of now).

Ah.  Thanks for the info.  I guess I haven't learned how to fully utilize the multimedia.de chart yet

Very interesting that the number is so much lower than I thought.  Maybe I got confused by all the numbers claimed by SS, DT and the others.  Is it really that much harder to get into istock? 

Seems a massive discrepency.  Maybe it is as Gostwyck suggests and those sites are including people who are registered but never upload and/or never have sales.

Do you take into account your time spent as costs assigning a value to it?

If I dont include time spent on this I did break even a lot of time ago... When I take the time spent into the equation using my usual "hourly rate" then things are not so great 
Time is money!

From a business perspective I'd agree with you, but in my case, I was taking photos before Microstock and I'd still be taking photos without Micro, so that's not a business expense it's just a fact of life.    What changed is that instead of the pictures only being shown to some bored friends, I now can upload them and bore buyers. 

Honestly, many people who are selling now, were also photographers before they discovered Micro. It's just a way to recover some of the expense of a hobby, that would mostly be time and money spent, if there was no microstock.

For the others, the IS information can be looked at as representative, since it may not include all sellers. However it sure does indicate, just like a survey would, what the general situation is for one of the best micro sites in the world. Aside from the small percentage of successful diamonds, golds and exclusives, it does show that many try, but more will give it a try and quit or never reach payout. Simple facts.

What we have on this forum is a highly skewed selective group of successful micro shooters. Look at one of the surveys here of how much people make annually or monthly, then look at the IS survey. There's nothing that matches.

I don't have a valid sampling of referrals, but some people who have websites and have tried recruiting more aggressively may want to add their experience. So far I've had one of my referrals, that actually got something uploaded to a site. (and is making good sales by the way) The majority signed up and never sent in one photo.  The numbers aren't as important as the fact that some people sign up for an account on many of the sites, IS included and have never been accepted or never submitted one photo. Same could be said for SS, FT, BS, DT, and others.

I broke even I would say within 7-8 month, but I started very humbly with 600 Euro set of eqipment bought used by my former boss. As people already said you do not need to spent thousands of $ for microstock. You can start out with  $300 -400, buy a  used Canon 10D or 20d together with the 50 1.8 mm and you have all you need for the beginning. If you consider the time microstock is a waste of your time for probably 95% of all contributors   

At the beginning of my microstock photography, almost 2 years ago, I upgraded to Canon 40d  + one new micro lens. I recovered that cost within 10 months from microstock. Since then, I am shooting cheap pictures and resisting temptation to upgrade, but how long I can resist?

Geez, Dingo.  I expected you to chime in 3 days ago.  You're getting slow!

I do agree that if stock was my primary source of income that of course time would be calculated into the break-even.  For me, it's not.  The hours I have put in have not taken away from paying work so I'm not sure how I could apply an hourly rate.  If I have time and feel like doing it, I do it.  Stock has actually enabled me to improve my day-job earnings by upgrading equipment.  So, if I am not paying myself an hourly rate, I normally break even the moment I have my first sale.  

I am considering doing a real shoot though... I am working out a budget right now and if I go through with it I will be renting a location, purchasing props and wardrobe.  I will either pay the models, or trade for one of my products.  This post has inspired me to earnestly track my time, and to determine an hourly rate for myself, I'll have to estimate the time I've spent budgeting and looking for wardrobe up until now.  I will also have to track the TFP time on my graphics design for the models I guess as well then.   Without time factored in, the shoot will cost around $500.  For me, that is a big deal because I have not paid for a shoot before.  (LOL, I am usually the one getting paid for shoots!)  I have 7 or 8 random photos in this subject that have earned more than this amount in the past year so it appears to be a good risk.  The topic is somewhat timeless so if I get some good shots, they should be salable for many years as well.  

Wilddingo, I would be interested in your point of view.  I think you will tell me not to sell to micros.  I am not on macros, so then what is my option?  Alamay?  I have not heard of any wild success stories on Alamay (but I only really know micro shooters).  Should I split the photos up and send some to micro and some to Alamay?  At least 60% of the shots from this location will have models.

Dudes, why keep trying to twist the meaning of financial terms to sidestep the reality that you are photography failures?

Break even point is a financial term that describes when expenses equal revenue. 

You bozos don't even calculate expenses correctly, why . do you bother with figuring out some imaginary break even point?  The biggest expense in stock is labor, not equipment. 

You dudes are losing money with every image you sell.  You have a higher chance of "breaking even" by sitting on your butts and spending no more time on microstock and just letting your images earn.

It's that simple really.

This is a very shallow analysis. Most businesses spend a few years not breaking even while they establish themselves. With a few exceptions (people who are already making a living from microstock) people on this forum are in the development stage. Your assumption that no one here will ever be doing any better, and is wasting their time, completely misses the point of forums like this. But then, maybe you're not intending to make a positive or rational contribution here, but have some other motive.

I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to this forum as I've never seen this Dingo guy around before.  What a brilliant analysis

Agreed, Mr. Wilddingo is not only a voice of reason but an immensely talented writer in itself. Reading his enlightening comments is always a pleasure.

Most businesses spend a few years not breaking even while they establish themselves.

Yes, but regular businesses start with honest business planning and a clear picture of their real costs. Talking about break-even and looking only at the price for a handful of lenses and books is not exactly what I would call a professional approach. I don't get it why so much aspiring semipro microstockers are not willing to learn the basics of business. All serious contributors would win if colleagues learn to understand the differences between making a profit and taking part in postmodern slavery. This is no macro vs. micro or old fart vs. youngster thing but plain common sense.

I think the vast majority of spending for a stock photography business is in the first couple of years as you collect all your equipment.   Of course you do have to upgrade cameras every two to three years, and probably also your computer, but other major costs such as lighting gear, backdrops, and a good lens collection are one time costs.

According to my accountant 15% overhead extremely low for a business.  He keeps trying to get me to spend more so my tax burden would be lower

Exactly.

You could always try going on a vacation photography field expedition Lisa to suck up those extra $'s and add variety to the jolly old port. They say travelling broadens the mind but they never mention how fast it thins the wallet too.